In the year 2000, the Massachusetts tax burden ranked
5th per capita, and 23rd relative to personal income.

In the year 2003, the Massachusetts tax burden ranked
3rd per capita – 30.3% above the national average; and 13th relative
to personal income.

Whatever the concerns about the state of the state,
it’s not the fault of taxpayers, who are paying more per capita than
taxpayers in 47 other states, and more relative to personal income than
taxpayers in 37 states.

The point of this release is that we’re movin’ on
up! But for those who have not looked at these charts before, here is
how they are read.

The only line required for "per capita tax
burden" is the line with the amount paid by each man, woman and
child in a given state (total population is the basis for any "per
capita" measurement). The state and local taxes are divided by the
number of people in a state so that comparison can be made, for example,
between California and Wyoming. On the top line, the national average is
$3,150. On Massachusetts’ line, it’s $4,106. This is generally the
money generated by each person (per capita) to cover services for the
same number of people. ("Per capita spending" usually is close
to the tax burden.)

Now add the number of states listed with higher
amounts, and you will find only two: Connecticut and New York. That
gives Massachusetts the third-highest tax burden of any state in the
nation.

Liberals use the "personal income"
computation to determine what level of taxation each state should be
able to "afford," and argue that because Massachusetts’
personal income is high, we should be able to afford higher taxes. To
which CLT says, "who’s ‘we,’ Sumner Redstone?"

Nonetheless, note that even relative to personal
income, Massachusetts has moved up from 23rd highest to 13th. Despite
demands for new taxes and wails of "devastating cuts" coming
from the demonstrators’ choir at the State House, when it comes to
taxes ... we’re movin’ on up!